George Bush (the Second) has recently
called for legislative action to prohibit gay
marriages, something that--thanks to initiatives
in Canada and a few US states--is becoming a
real (and apparently threatening to some) possibility
in this country. Bushs position is that
he believes that a marriage is,
by definition, the union of a man and a woman.
Ergo, gay marriages are an oxymoron. Of course,
one could point out that definitions are arbitrary
human concepts (unless they are part of mathematical
proofs, which aint the case here). But
that would be pointless, since we all know where
Bush gets his belief: from his reading of the
Bible, apparently still shared by a majority
of Americans.

In this George II is not alone.
The Pope himself agrees that gay unions are
abominations, but his reasoning is a bit more
sophisticated (as one would expect), and yet
fundamentally fallacious. John Paul II has stated
that the reason gay marriages shouldnt
be allowed is because they are unnatural,
and they are unnatural because they do not lead
to procreation. Well, it is hard to disagree
with the observation that gay unions dont
produce biological offspring, although the term
unnatural hardly applies, because
a lot of unions in nature--human and not--dont
yield progeny (e.g., bonobos, the pigmy chimpanzees,
have sex in order to mend social relationships.
If only we would follow such a wise example!).
But let us concede for the sake of argument
(and only as a purely intellectual exercise)
that sex without at least the intent of procreation
is unnatural. To then claim that
it should be prohibited because immoral, is
a flagrant example of what philosophers call
the naturalistic fallacy.

David Hume, in his A Treatise
of Human Nature (1739), pointed out that there
is no logical connection between what is (in
nature) and what ought to be (in human morality).
In other words, as both Bush and the Pope would
probably readily admit if the point were pressed
on them, just because something is not natural
it doesnt follow that it is immoral. Surely,
flying (in airplanes, as both George and John
Paul regularly do) is not natural for human
beings, but I doubt either of them is going
to call for a ban on air travel on moral grounds
any time soon. Closer to the moral realm, although
plenty of animals engage in limited forms of
altruism--usually directed at close kins--there
is no natural equivalent of organized charities,
on which the Catholic Church heavily depends,
and which Bush thinks is the answer to anything
except war.

Ironically, a similar fallacy
is sometimes committed by advocates of gay rights.
While initially resistant to a biological interpretation
of their sexual preferences, sectors of the
gay community have recently been emphasizing
research purportedly showing that homosexuality
has at least in part a genetic component. Such
research is controversial (scientifically, not
morally) in itself, since it is often based
on small samples, and since the genetic component
may account for only a fraction of the variation
in sexual orientation in the human population.
Be that as it may, an homosexual could point
to genetical studies to claim that her orientation
is part of the biological range of behaviors
observable within the human species, and hence
natural. Furthermore, one could
argue that if homosexuality is biological, than
it makes no more sense to ask a gay person to
convert to heterosexuality than
it does to pretend that somebody changes race
(although, of course, the letter request would
be rather unpopular even among conservatives
today--gosh, could we really be making progress
after all?).

But such biological defense
of homosexuality is misguided for three important
reasons. First, ample research has shown that
just because a trait has a genetic basis, it
does not follow that it is unalterable by changes
in the environment, or through behavioral shifts.
For example, we have a natural craving for fats
and sugars but, as hard as it often is, we can
avoid walking into McDonalds, by a sheer
act of will power. Second, a genetic basis for
homosexuality would certainly make it natural,
but religious conservatives could still argue
that it is wrong because it is akin
to a disease. After all, sickle cell anemia
is natural, but it is something to fix, not
to brag about.

However, the most important reason
not to advocate a biological defense of the
gay lifestyle is because one would fall into
the same temptation that got the Pope, and against
which Hume warned us: the naturalistic fallacy.
Again: just because something is natural, it
does not follow that it is good. We can determine
by observation and study what is natural and
what is not. But we need to arrive at moral
rules by agreement (when possible), and tolerance
(when the alleged immoral behavior
does not actually hurt others).

Therefore, Bushs personal
beliefs about what really constitutes
a marriage are (or should be) irrelevant, and
the Pope (as well as his Protestant fundamentalist
counterparts in the US) has no business deriving
an ought from an is. Regardless of what biologists
will continue to find out about homosexuality,
rational philosophy is the best weapon in the
fight for personal sexual choices.

BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!